This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 12:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Criminal Justice EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

Improving Academic Advising ThroughStudent Seminars: A Case StudyJoshua R. BattinPublished online: 12 May 2014.

To cite this article: Joshua R. Battin (2014) Improving Academic Advising Through StudentSeminars: A Case Study, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25:3, 354-367, DOI:10.1080/10511253.2014.910242

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.910242

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Improving Academic Advising ThroughStudent Seminars: A Case Study

Joshua R. Battin

Effective advising can be a challenge for most criminal justice and criminol-ogy programs due to the high enrollment and the variety of careers availablein the field. One technique designed to address these challenges is the groupadvising method. The purpose of this study was to examine the details, pro-cesses, and execution of a particular group advising method, called studentadvising seminars, implemented over a two-year period in a criminal justicedepartment at a four-year state-owned university. Preliminary data measur-ing student accountability and satisfaction are also examined. The findingsindicate student advising seminars, as it is described in this case study, havea potential of providing effective and efficient advising.

Introduction

Advising takes many forms in higher education, regardless of academic disci-pline (Flanagan, Gerber, Hertenstein, & Foster, 1998; Gordon, Habley, &Grites, 2008; Habley, 2004; Kuhtmann, 2004; Smith & Allen, 2006; Tuttle,

2000). The unique interdisciplinary qualities of the criminal justice and crimi-nology fields add another complex dimension to the provision of academic

advising (Flanagan et al., 1998). The variety of careers available to graduates,diverse student population, variation in course subject matter, and the large

number of students enrolled in these programs limit the amount of time fac-ulty spend advising students (Milem, Berger, & Dey, 2000; Sims Blackwell &

Payne 2012). Despite these difficulties, academic advising serves as an impor-tant function to student success and it is the responsibility of the universityand faculty to ensure adequate advising is provided to students (Brown &

Rivas, 1994; Nutt, 2000; Sims Blackwell & Payne, 2012).The purpose of this case study was to explore a unique method of offering

academic advising to a relatively large body of students with few faculty advis-ors. This case study examined the specific details of how advising standards

were upheld given limited resources. The advising procedures, advertising tocurrent and prospective students, changing the current advising culture within

the department, and methods used to hold students accountable will bereviewed in detail. In addition, the data from a preliminary exploratory study

� 2014 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2014Vol. 25, No. 3, 354–367, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.910242

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(i.e. quantitative and qualitative methods) regarding advising satisfaction wereanalyzed. The reader should note these data are presented to provide the ini-

tial groundwork for continuity; the group advising process, in reference toimplementation and methodology, stand as the focus of this article.

Academic Advising in Criminal Justice and Criminology Programs

Academic advising remains a vital function of university staff and faculty (Sims

Blackwell & Payne, 2012). Effective advising is directly linked to the retentionand satisfaction among students (Brown & Rivas, 1994; Coll & Zalaquett, 2007;

Crockett, 1978; King, 1993; Nutt, 2000; Sims Blackwell & Payne, 2012). It iseasy to understand why advising is so important in the current age of academicaccountability and assessment; moreover, most universities are constantly

looking for ways to maintain or increase enrollment.Student satisfaction in the advising process has many implications. Sims

Blackwell and Payne (2012) found that advising satisfaction had a positive cor-relation with learning outcomes and overall satisfaction with ones’ education.

In addition, it is believed that perceptions of advising are directly linked to thenumber of majors within the program. The authors suggest the continuity and

fiscal stability of academic programs partly rest on the success of the advisingprocess (Glennen, Farren, & Vowell, 1996; Tinto, 1993).

Academic planning and handling curricular problems seemed to be the mostprevalent topics when examining advising in higher education; however, advis-ing also encompasses career advice and life skills training (Allen & Smith,

2008; White & Schulenberg, 2012). The mode of delivery can take many forms(Flanagan et al., 1998; Kuhtmann, 2004; Smith & Allen, 2006; Tuttle, 2000).

Smith and Allen (2006) suggested most academic programs utilize one of thefollowing core strategies: (1) professional staff advisement, (2) centralized

faculty advisement, or (3) equitable faculty advisement. Others, however,maintain additional advising models that exist, such as a peer (i.e. undergradu-

ate students) or paraprofessional (i.e. graduate or retired personnel) advise-ment systems (Flanagan et al., 1998). The numerous modes of delivery areevidence of the variation that exists within criminal justice and criminology

programs across the United States. Consequently, the advising strategiesshould be tailored to the unique demands of each department or program and

their students.The key characteristics of the department and faculty are important when

examining the types of advising methods used at various higher education insti-tutions. The majority of community colleges incorporate centralized profes-

sional staff counseling and equitable faculty advising approaches (Gordonet al., 2008). Habley (2004) noted centralized professional staff counseling was

becoming more prevalent at community colleges a decade ago. Four-year lib-eral arts and state institutions primary advising model is equitable facultyadvisement, relying on faculty to provide advising services as part of their

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

professional responsibilities; however, faculty responsibilities and obligationschange dramatically at research institutions (Gordon et al., 2008). Research

institutions tend to place a greater emphasis on scholarship, stressing serviceand advising much less. Consequently, research institutions tend to use various

forms of advising (Gordon et al., 2008; Habley, 2004)The emphasis placed on proper academic advising is also diverse. Flanagan

et al. (1998) indicate programmatic advising falls along a continuum between a

passive and intrusive process. A completely passive advising approach willallow the student the freedom to seek the desired assistance when it is

needed; however, an intrusive or proactive approach will force advisor/adviseecontact. Intrusive advising can go as far as requiring an advisor’s approval to

graduate. The majority of higher education institutions employ a faculty-onlymodel, where students are required to interact with their advisor prior to

course registration.This particular case study focuses on a group advising model, a paradigm

where students interact with faculty advisors, as well as peers who have simi-lar academic standing and challenges (Gordon et al., 2008). Gordon et al.explain that the group advising process has many benefits if delivered under

the correct conditions. Group advising can be advantageous if there are a lim-ited number of faculty advisors available relative to a large number of stu-

dents. Efficiency is gained when information is passed to a group of individualsrather than a one-on-one traditional basis between the advisor and advisee. It

is suggested topics such as general education, the registration process, courseselection, and policies/procedures can be discussed in the group advising ses-

sions. In addition, students should be grouped together based on number ofcredits earned, allowing peers to interact and share insight on curricular deci-sions. This process has been found to greatly reduce the amount of one-on-one

advising needed for all faculty involved.

Advising Effectiveness and Retention

The effectiveness of advising becomes relevant and justifiably important in thecurrent state of academia when examining it through the lens of retention and

attrition. Fewer high school graduates, economic hardships, the need forcontinual assessment and “business model” improvements in higher education

require academic units to focus and place particular emphasis on otherwiseneglected areas such as advising. Indeed, the literature is riddled with

examples of various academic advising models having a positive impact onretention and student satisfaction (Brown & Rivas, 1994; Coll & Zalaquett,

2007; Crockett, 1978; King, 1993; Nutt, 2000; Sims Blackwell & Payne, 2012).Given this current state of academia and existing correlation between

high-quality advising and retention, this particular topic becomes significantlyrelevant and potentially essential to academic units assessing theirbottom-line.

356 BATTIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Group advising, in particular, creates a forum for students to interact andshare common experiences (Gordon et al., 2008). By combating isolation, one

of the primary variables related to student attrition (Light, 2001; Tinto, 1993),group advising assists with forming student peer relationships and sharing

advising information. Therefore, it has been found that the group advisingmethod, by creating a forum to share commonalities, decreases student isola-tion and “directly impacts student persistence and success” (Gordon et al.,

2008, p. 282).The noted implications of successful advising should persuade faculty, aca-

demic units, and higher education institutions to implement sound advisingtechniques and strategies. Although many forms of advising exist, it is impor-

tant to understand each academic unit has unique characteristics that shouldultimately influence the way in which advising should be delivered to students.

The intention of this study is to record and assess the implementation, meth-odology, efficiency, and effectiveness of a group advising model employed over

a two-year period.

Background and Current Study

This case study focuses on a criminal justice department, offering an Associ-ates of Science (A.S.) degree and a Bachelors of Science (B.S.) degree, at a

relatively small state-owned university with approximately 2,100–2,300 stu-dents enrolled. Enrollment in the department during the time of inquiry wasapproximately 230 students, with two to three full-time tenure-track faculty

members employed (i.e. a faculty retirement occurred following the first yearof implementation). This particular department is one of the largest on campus

in terms of student enrollment. The majority of graduates from both degreeprograms enter into the criminal justice field immediately, with very few B.S.

degree students enrolling in graduate degree programs.A faculty union collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required advising be

provided by full-time tenure-track faculty members, but explicit advisingmethods were not defined. Consequently, specific departmental and program-matic advising methods are determined by each academic unit; however, equi-

table faculty advisement is primarily used by all academic units acrosscampus. The group advising methods described here were implemented by the

criminal justice department and only affected the students enrolled in thecriminal justice A.S. and B.S. degree programs.

The most common method of advisement for large programs is professionalstaff advisement (Flanagan et al., 1998; Smith & Allen, 2006). This type of

advisement, however, was not a viable option given the limited resourcesavailable and the CBA restrictions. Because every program has unique charac-

teristics and advising needs, the department needed to decide how they wouldprovide quality advisement to a relatively large body of students given a lim-ited number of faculty.

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Understanding the context in this case study and what is meant by a “rela-tively large body of students” is imperative. A program with 200 students may

seem large or small given the context. It is more useful, when examining advis-ing efforts, to label a program’s size based on the number of advisees per fac-

ulty member. In the context of academic advising workload, a program with200 students could be large or small; that is, a program, using the equitablefaculty advisement model, with 200 students will have a much greater advising

hurdle with only two or three full-time tenure-track faculty than a programwith additional personnel. Consequently, it is useful to examine advising work-

load in the context of student-to-faculty ratio.These group advising methods were employed for two years, or four semes-

ters, having approximately 230 majors enrolled in the department (i.e. A.S. andB.S. programs). There were three full-time faculty members during the first year

(i.e. 76.66:1 student-to-faculty ratio) and only two during the second year ofimplementation (i.e. 115:1 student-to-faculty ratio). During this time, the aca-

demic department was going through a period of curricular changes and facultyturnover. The only option available was the equitable faculty advisementmethod; however, this approach would have required faculty members to meet

with approximately 75–100 students individually during each semester.The decision to improve the academic advising process was due to a change

in departmental leadership and workload issues. A completely passive advisingprocess was employed prior to the implementation of the new group advising

methods. It was believed that an equitable faculty advising process requiredan unmanageable workload for each faculty member. Consequently, depart-

ment faculty members selected a group advising method that had a potentialto improve efficiency, decrease the time required with individual studentadvisement, and take advantage of the various secondary benefits provided by

this type of advising.

Student Advising Seminars

The group advising method used, called student advising seminars, requiredstudents to attend one seminar each semester prior to the registration period.

An email solicitation was sent to every student, informing them of the seminardates, the registration process, and materials to bring to the seminar. Students

were grouped based on number of credits earned. This allowed the seminar tofocus more on the issues facing each cohort. Based on the Gordon et al. (2008)

model, a lecture was given reviewing such topics as general education, regis-tration dates, major requirements, course selection, and registration policies.

The classroom technology was used to provide visual examples of their pro-gram evaluation, registration process, and the location of registration materi-

als online. Following the lecture, students were required to meet with one ofthe faculty members present and discuss potential courses. The students wereasked to prepare a tentative course schedule prior to attending the seminar. If

358 BATTIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the students and advisor were comfortable with this schedule, they werecleared to register. If the students were in need of additional advising, they

were asked to see their advisor during upcoming office hours.The number of advising seminars offered each semester was adjusted over

time. Eight seminars were offered during the first semester, having two semi-nars each week during a four-week period. Not having the desired efficiencywith this many seminars, the next semester four seminars were offered,

increasing student attendance at each seminar. This dramatically enhancedefficiency, without massively increasing the time spent on individual advising

following the lecture. Three seminars were offered in the final two semesters,which provided the optimum efficiency given the setting’s unique set of

circumstances.

Changing the Advising Culture

Changing the advising culture was a challenge for this particular department.There were roughly 230 majors and only two faculty available to provide advis-

ing over the three-year period prior to the implementation of these studentadvising seminars. The general approach to advising at that time was passive,

allowing students to meet with their advisor if assistance is needed. If a stu-dent did not need assistance, they were automatically cleared to register with-

out any advisement process taking place. Consequently, the majority ofstudents did not seek assistance, nor did they believe they needed to beadvised. The success of the student advising seminars was dependent upon

changing the advising culture that existed among current students and faculty.The assault on the advising culture took many forms, as it was evident

changing the attitudes of many about advising were going to be difficult. Cre-ating a standard of advising would only be effective if students understood

why it is important and the information was readily available. This required anextensive advertising campaign and creation of advising artifacts that were dis-

tributed to prospective and current students.Before any advertisement could take place, it was imperative that all fac-

ulty take ownership in the new advising process. This process was discussed

and ultimately agreed upon during department meetings. Faculty membersmade periodic class announcements regarding the upcoming advising seminars.

An advising webpage was created on the academic department website, wherethe new advising methods were articulated and links to the necessary advising

materials were created. Finally, weekly reminder emails were sent to allmajors to insure they had access to the materials and were prepared to attend

a seminar.A student handbook, incorporating a program overview, requirements, poli-

cies (i.e. departmental and university), internships, career paths, criminal jus-tice organizations on campus, faculty achievements, and academic forms wereproduced to have a centralized location where the majority of information

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

regarding the students’ academic career could be found. In addition, anacademic planning worksheet was created, which highlighted the suggested

criminal justice courses students should take each semester to stay on track tograduate. These advising artifacts were published on the department’s website

and proved vital to the success of the new advising program. These materialsin addition to transcript examples and a list of general education approvedcourses were sent to all advisees every semester in the seminar solicitation

email.The current student culture began to change following the first semester of

implementation, but it did not come without problems. Students articulated tofaculty that the details and intricacies of the program and general education

requirements were not as evident as previously thought. Learning these gen-eral education rules during the advising seminars (e.g. a student cannot take

two courses in the same prefix in the humanities block) brought aboutincreased advising problems. There were a number of instances where students

realized they previously made a mistake, prior to the implementation of thestudent advising seminars, by taking a particular course because they did notseek advisement. Fortunately, these problems did not cause program advance-

ment problems for the majority of students.The second stage of advertisement and culture change focused on the

prospective students visiting the university. The process of meeting prospec-tive students takes three forms on this campus. Visitation days bring in

groups of students and their families to tour the campus and meet with afaculty member from the department in which they are interested. Students

and families also visit the campus on undesignated days going through thesame procedures. When prospective students and their families meet withfaculty, this advising process is discussed. It is stressed to the student and

family the need and importance of academic advising. The process is brieflyreviewed so they understand the expectation if they choose this particular

university for higher education. Orientation is the third meeting whereadvising is mentioned. During the freshman orientation meeting, students

meet with a faculty member to discuss their upcoming semester and course-work. A brief reminder is given to the students about the advising process

and to be aware that the email solicitation will be sent during the upcom-ing semester.

The final, and perhaps the most important, piece to the culture changewas the accountability placed on the students. Before a student could regis-ter on his or her designated registration date, the advisor must release a

temporary hold on their account. As previously stated, prior to the imple-mentation of the advising seminars, students were automatically released

without any advisement. With this new advising process, the students weremade aware that they would be released only after attending an advising

seminar. A list of attendees was maintained and forwarded to faculty fol-lowing each seminar. Each faculty member then released the respective

advisees for registration.

360 BATTIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Changing the culture of advising was undoubtedly the most difficult chal-lenge of this endeavor. It is believed that placing accountability on the

student, when moving from a completely passive to much more intrusiveapproach, was the most important factor when implementing this advising

method. This is not to diminish the significance of extensive advertising cam-paign or artifacts that were produced. The change in culture was a combina-tion of informing students of specific expectations and holding them

accountable to these new standards.

Methods

As a part of a university-wide effort to improve advising efforts, a survey wassent to all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at the university. The

data presented here are the results of the first advising survey. Longitudinaldata are not available at this time.

An academic advising survey solicitation was sent by email to all studentsduring the first week of the semester. The survey included questions related to

demographic information, student status, extracurricular activities, back-ground information, and discipline enrollment. Non-respondents were sent two

additional emails approximately one week apart. The survey was concludedapproximately three weeks after the original email solicitation with a 29.6%

(n = 737) response rate campus-wide. The total number of criminal justicemajors responding to the survey was 39 (n = 39) out of a 236 majors, yielding aresponse rate of 16.5%.

Measures

The methods presented here can be considered a form of secondary data anal-ysis. There were numerous measures of sample characteristics. Gender, age,race/ethnicity, credits earned, athlete status, residence, transfer status, vet-

eran status, and enrollment status data were collected from the respondents.The remaining survey items asked students if they agreed or disagreed with

statements concerning a number of concepts. Single variables were con-structed using a number of survey items having similar context and meaning.

The five variables drawn from the original data were student responsibility,advisor availability, advisor helpfulness, student preparation, and student over-

all satisfaction. Responsibility, availability, and helpfulness were constructedusing a number of survey items; preparation and satisfaction included one sur-vey item each.

The responses to responsibility, availability, helpfulness, and preparationwere aggregated into a three-point scale (i.e. agree, neutral, and disagree).

There were four response categories for the satisfaction variable (i.e. poor,fair, good, and excellent). The final two survey items can be considered a

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 361

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

qualitative assessment of the advising methods employed. Students were askedto indicate why they never sought advising assistance (if applicable) and to

provide their thoughts concerning the advising methods employed by theiradvisor and academic department.

Findings

The sample characteristics show wide diversity in some areas (see Table 1).

The traditional undergraduate student is identified as 24 years of age or under,non-transfer, and full-time student; however, the sample here includes diverse

groups, such as part-time status (15.4%), veterans (10.3%), transfer students(15.4%), athletes (10.3%), and commuters (23.1%). The sample characteristicsof criminal justice largely mimic that of the university-wide sample except for

veteran status. The university-wide sample indicated 2.8% as veteran, whilethe criminal justice sample contained a much higher concentration (i.e.

10.3%).The university-wide sample characteristics are very similar to the criminal

justice sample in reference to age, race/ethnicity, and credits earned. Gen-der, however, was quite different when comparing the two samples. The uni-

versity-wide sample contained 71.8% female, while the criminal justice samplecontained 56.4% female. This disparity exists due to the gender difference

within the major. During the year of data collection, the gender characteristicsof the criminal justice department were 28.5% female. The 56.4% female sta-tistic for this sample does not entirely represent the criminal justice depart-

ment at this university.The sample showed a favorable rating for the advising methods employed

over the past two years (see Table 2). Student responsibility, advisor availabil-ity, advising helpfulness, and student preparation data were collected on a

three-point scale (i.e. −1 to 1). Due to computing variables using a number ofsurvey items, the mean ð�xÞ is presented here as evidence of satisfaction. A

negative, or close to zero, rating would indicate a poor perception of thesevariables. Table 2 indicates a high mean score for student responsibilityð�x ¼ :76Þ, advisor availability ð�x ¼ :64Þ, advising helpfulness ð�x ¼ :56Þ, and stu-

dent preparation ð�x ¼ :74Þ. Overall satisfaction was measured using a forcedresponse type approach. Based on a four-point scale (i.e. coded 1–4), students

indicated a high satisfaction with the advising they received ð�x ¼ 3:45Þ. Furtherevidence of overall satisfaction can be found when considering 90.3% of valid

respondents indicated the advising efforts were either good or excellent (seeTable 3).

From a qualitative standpoint, students were asked why they never con-tacted their advisor (if applicable) and to provide their thoughts concerning

the advising they received at the university. Two respondents indicated theynever felt the need to contact their advisor, evidence of a lack in culturechange during the new advising initiative. Approximately one-third of the

362 BATTIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

respondents shared their thoughts concerning the advising they received at the

university. The overwhelming majority indicated the new advising methodswere very helpful and easy for students to navigate through the advising and

registration process. The comments below are a select few that represent themajority of the student sentiment.

Table 1 Sample characteristics

Frequency Percent

Valid

percent

Cumulative

percent

Gender Female 22 56.4 56.4 56.4

Male 17 43.6 43.6 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Age 24 or younger 34 87.2 87.2 87.2

25 or older 5 12.8 12.8 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Race or

ethnicity

Hispanic 1 2.6 2.6 2.6

Multi-racial 1 2.6 2.6 5.1

Pacific Islander 1 2.6 2.6 7.7

White 35 89.7 89.7 97.4

Prefer not to say 1 2.6 2.6 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Credits

earned

0–29 16 41.0 41.0 41.0

30–59 14 35.9 35.9 76.9

60–89 3 7.7 7.7 84.6

90 or more 6 15.4 15.4 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Athlete

status

Athlete 4 10.3 10.3 10.3

Not an athlete 35 89.7 89.7 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Residence On campus 27 69.2 71.1 71.1

Off campus 2 5.1 5.3 76.3

Commuter 9 23.1 23.7 100.0

Total 38 97.4 100.0

Missing System 1 2.6

Total 39 100.0

Transfer

status

Transfer 6 15.4 15.4 15.4

Not a transfer 33 84.6 84.6 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Veteran

status

Veteran or military

reservist

4 10.3 10.3 10.3

Not a veteran 35 89.7 89.7 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

Enrollment

status

Full time 33 84.6 84.6 84.6

Part time 6 15.4 15.4 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 363

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

“I think that they do a great job here, they seem like they want you to suc-ceed”

The new advising methods are “very helpful and easy”

The advisors “help out with the demands of my questions and are very person-able. Goes out of their way to help me.”

The basic sentiment of the respondents was the advisors provided qualityand easily accessible advising to students. The one and only dissenting com-

ment was more neutral in nature. The following comment does not display acomplete satisfaction with the advising they received.

The advisor was sometimes helpful and other times leaves me clueless. Youare on your own which classes to take and which not to take. I would say myadvisor is very neutral when it comes to suggestions. Overall okay.

The qualitative and quantitative evidence clearly indicate the advising

methods employed are having a positive impact on the students in a number of

Table 2 Mean scores for advising variables

N

Mean Std. deviationValid Missing

Student responsibility 39 0 .76* .490

Advisor availability 25 14 .64* .500

Advising helpfulness 18 21 .56* .640

Student preparation 31 8 .74* .580

Overall satisfaction 31 8 3.45** .680

*Based on a three-point ( −1 to 1) scale;**Based on a four-point (1–4) scale.

Table 3 Overall student satisfaction

Frequency Percent

Valid

percent

Cumulative

percent

Overall satisfaction Poor 0 0 0 0

Fair 3 7.7 9.7 9.7

Good 11 28.2 35.5 45.2

Excellent 17 43.6 54.8 100.0

Total 31 79.5 100.0

Missing System 8 20.5

Total 39 100.0

364 BATTIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

areas. This conclusion, however, does need to be approached with caution.The sample size does limit the overall conclusions that can be made; however,

it does provide some evidence of effectiveness. Future data collection effortswill attempt to increase the sample size to a more acceptable level.

Discussion and Conclusions

The evidence has shown that the group advising methods used in this particular

case study have produced relatively high levels of satisfaction among studentsand have increased knowledge of a number of advising topics. The quantitative

and qualitative data show an advising standard can be obtained and sustainedwith relatively few faculty members and a large body of students. Becauseadvising success is related to the satisfaction among the students’ program and

university (see Brown & Rivas, 1994; Coll & Zalaquett, 2007; Nutt, 2000; SimsBlackwell & Payne, 2012), the need to sustain and continually improve advising

methods is imperative.Although this study has largely focused on the advantages of this particular

case study, limitations and challenges were present. As with any meeting, it isdifficult to designate a particular date and time that all students can attend.

Originally, this problem was alleviated by offering eight advising seminars;however, this drastically decreased the number of students attending each

seminar, ultimately limiting efficiency. To maximize efficiency, three seminarswere offered in the final year of implementation. In addition, the seminarswere held during university meeting times, when few classes were held. This

strategy was coupled with email solicitations sent in advance requesting stu-dents keep their schedule free during the designated seminar times. These

strategies increased the number of students that were able to attend dramati-cally.

It was anticipated that some students would not attend regardless of thenew advising requirements. The hold was retained on their account for these

students, until they explained their actions to an advisor. If a student neverattended an advising seminar or sought assistance from their advisor, the holdwould remain and university administration would send correspondence con-

cerning a lack of enrollment for the next semester.The quantitative methods portion of this study also has its limitations given

the number of participants. The relatively few participants limit the scope andvalidity of the results. It is planned that data will again be collected in two

years. Strategies to improve response rates will be examined and employedduring future data collection points. It is hoped these strategies will produce

the response rate needed to yield meaningful results.Despite these limitations, it is believed that a meaningful advising founda-

tion was created using these methods. The change in advising culture wasundoubtedly the most difficult. It is suggested when shifting from a passive toa more intrusive advising process, an extensive advertising campaign take

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 365

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

place. The creation of advising artifacts and advertising to current andprospective students greatly assisted this process. The most important method

when shifting to this more intrusive process was student accountability.Although some students would participate in the new process given the

requirement and request by faculty, it is believed attendance was increaseddue to the hold placed on their registration accounts. This is especially impor-tant to current students who experienced a much more passive process in the

past. As these students graduate and new students phase in, the culture ofadvising in the department will be much easier to maintain.

The specific details of this advising process should not overshadow the originalpurpose; that is, the need for improved advising techniques was evident prior to

the implementation of the student advising seminars. This group advising pro-cess allowed for improvement and student accountability with relatively few

resources available. Consequently, these methods could serve as a guide toother departments looking to employ a similar advising process, not systematic

instructions. Specific characteristics of this department influenced the methodsdescribed above and, therefore, the characteristics of other departments shoulddictate the specific process. Notwithstanding, improving advising methods

should be comprehensive in nature, accounting for culture, efficiency, advertis-ing, the creation of advising artifacts, and student accountability.

Notes on Contributor

Joshua R. Battin is an assistant professor and chairperson of the Criminal Justice Admin-istration Department at Mansfield University. He holds a Master’s Degree and PhD incriminology from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. His research and teaching interestsinclude all aspects of policing, criminological theory, and crime prevention policy.

References

Allen, J. M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfactionwith academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Develop-ment, 49, 397–411.

Brown, T., & Rivas, M. (1994). The prescriptive relationship in academic advising as anappropriate developmental intervention with multicultural populations. NACADAJournal, 14, 108–111.

Coll, J. E., & Zalaquett, C. (2007). The relationship of worldviews of advisors and stu-dents and satisfaction with advising: A case of homogenous group impact. Journal ofCollege Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9, 273–281.

Crockett, D. S. (1978). Academic advising: A cornerstone of student retention. InL. Noel (Ed.), Reducing the dropout rate (pp. 29–35). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Flanagan, T. J., Gerber, J., Hertenstein, J. E., & Foster, M. F. (1998). Academicadvising in baccalaureate criminology and criminal justice programs: A nationalassessment. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 233–247.

366 BATTIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Glennen, R. E., Farren, P. J., & Vowell, F. N. (1996). How advising and retention ofstudents improves fiscal stability. NACADA Journal, 16, 38–41.

Gordon, V. N., Habley, W. R., & Grites, T. J. (Eds.). (2008). Academic advising: Acomprehensive handbook (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Habley, W. R. (2004). The status of academic advising: Findings from the ACT SixthNational Survey. Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.

King, M. C. (1993). Academic advising, retention, and transfer. New Directions forCommunity Colleges, 1993, 21–31.

Kuhtmann, M. S. (2004). Mission impossible? Advising and institutional culture. NACADAJournal, 24, 99–110.

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study ofchange over twenty years. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 454–475.

Nutt, C. L. (2000). One-to-one advising. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.),Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 220–227). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Sims Blackwell, B., & Payne, B. K. (2012). Attitudes about advising among criminaljustice graduates: Ties to educational and departmental outcomes. Journal ofCriminal Justice Education, 23, 517–535.

Smith, C., & Allen, J. (2006). Essential functions of academic advising: What studentswant and get. NACADA Journal, 26, 56–66.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tuttle, K. N. (2000). Academic advising. New directions for higher education, 2000,15–24.

White, E., & Schulenberg, J. (2012). Academic Advising – A focus on learning. AboutCampus, 16, 11–17.

STUDENT ADVISING SEMINARS 367

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

32 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014